Models

Models are the most effective and efficient way to organize the Second Half. Models are structures, or outlines, that capture the ideas of the round and condense them to a few areas of focus. Models focus on clash. It is hard to accomplish the goals of the Second Half. Models help lay the foundation for effective Summary and Final Focus speeches. You select a model before the debate. This allows you to strategize and practice using the model. Models also help facilitate comparisons and Impact Calculus. These structures also prevent you from doing pure line-by-line analysis. It is a rare Summary or Final Focus is effective and doesn’t use a model. Listed below are the most successful models that I have used, taught, and seen in round.

The Basic: Key Areas of Clash

This model selects two to four main conflicts between the Pro and Con, or areas of clash, and discusses each area independently. The debater would begin by naming each of these conflicts and then one by one addressing each. Each clash compares a Pro and Con argument. This tends to be the default model used by debaters.

Example: “The three central issues of this round are the effects on human rights, the cost to the government, and the just use of military force. First, I will discuss human rights… Second, the issue of government cost…. and finally, we must measure whether this is a just use of military force… in conclusion, the Pro has won these three issues, meaning that….”

Unifying topic or theme

This model identifies a topic or theme that both sides share. The topic will come from an overlap of frameworks, arguments, or impacts. During the round speeches may begin to center on certain arguments that become an area of clash. You may also want to highlight if the topic fits your Framework. The unifying theme tends to fall into the categories of social, political, or economic effects. Examples are the effect on human rights, economic prosperity or decline, diplomatic or military efficacy, quality of life, fulfillment of democratic ideals, etc. You will make comparisons of how each team fulfills, falls short, or achieves the best outcome under that topic.

Example: “This round is centered on the idea of human rights; our opponents focus on the loss of… while our case illustrates that we will gain…”

Two Ways to Win

This model uses your two strongest arguments to structure your speeches. A favorite of Les Phillips, he writes that this model “identifies two quite distinct arguments – perhaps setting up a choice for final focus” (Phillips). Within each argument, you will address the strengths of your point while integrating answers to your opponents’ arguments that you can group under each topic. The larger structure, rather than simply giving the judge your two strongest arguments, is to use the “even if” connector to give the judge two independent ways to vote for your team. This model allows you to “lose” an argument in the judge’s mind and still provide a means of him or her voting for you. This model only works if you can discuss your opponents’ arguments while you discuss your two ways to win.

Example: “The Pro team provides the clearest advantage for the country because we provide… but even if you are not persuaded by that impact, we are also providing the best scenario for…Either argument is reason enough to vote Pro in this debate.”

Your Best/ Their Best

Less like a model and more like a rhetorical structure, “Your Best/Their Best” narrows the round down to the strongest argument that each team presents. This model allows you to mount the largest attack against your opponents’ strongest point and spend a lot of time on your own. Caution should be taken, however, in choosing the “best” argument. These two arguments must be the strongest and most prominent in the round because this model is so narrow. Poor argument selection risks avoiding your opponents’ best argument. The judge will think you are backing down or simply chose a poor strategy. One caveat to this model is do not ignore the rest of the arguments; you can still discuss minor arguments. Rather than eliminate the rest of the debate, the model focuses on two arguments to present the judge an either/or choice.

Example: “This round has come down to the idea of “A” on the Pro and “B” on the Con. Looking at the Pro case, we can see… but if we turn to the Con, there are learn advantages to choosing “B”…. These two arguments define the true outcome of voting Pro or Con, and for that reason we must choose Con to promote “B” and achieve…”

Pro World vs. Con World

This model paints a clear dichotomy between the Pro and Con. It illustrates what the world would look like if the judge voted for either team. In the model you want to paint your opponent’s side first and then your own. Dividing the sides like this is effective because it piles impacts up. This is helpful when the clash isn’t apparent in the round. You can also go back and forth comparing impacts that are similar, always ending on your own impacts. This works if the clash is clear. The comparisons should center on impacts. Give realistic examples of what this means for the judge, country, world, etc. You are telling the story of what the resolution would be like if taken into effect or not.

Example: “The resolution presents a choice between two very different worlds and futures for X. In the Con world, we would see… But in the Pro world, we would gain…. Clearly, the choice between Pro and Con is a choice between A and B. For a better X, we must pursue the Pro and …”

Real vs. Ideal

This model is derived from Pro World vs. Con World. It uses the same rhetoric and structure as described above, but paints your opponents’ case as being idealistic while yours is realistic. Please note that this only works if in fact your opponents are being idealistic and you are being realistic. This dynamic could occur when your opponent uses theory and not real world evidence to support their arguments, sketches impacts at the extreme rather than more probable effects, or your case is more solidly grounded in precedent or observable evidence.

All models are intended to guide the judge through the round and towards voting. However, models are only as effective as the debater who uses them.  Select your model with care. Decide on models as a team because the Summary and Final Focus should be unified in structure and argumentation. Too many teams are fragmented in their approach during the second half. Remember, the Summary and Final Focus are like two puzzle pieces you have to fit together. You need to make sure the pieces are cut from the same model. The judge will notice if the two speeches are not cohesive.

Despite this unity, the Summary and Final Focus serve different purposes and present different challenges.